Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Lechmere]

The whole significance of Charles Lechmere's address possibly being given is that it has been suggested that as he gave his workplace and address in open court he could not have been trying to hide his true identity by using the name Cross.
This does not necessarily follow, but in any case if he did not in fact give his address in open court (but the star established it through checking with the officials during the lunch recess) then it serves to strengthen the case that he was indeed acting in a way to obscure his identity.
Whether the court would often turn a blind eye to a witness not giving his address is irrelevant.

[Lechmere]

The motto of the Worshipful Company of Carmen is
'skilfully, swiftly, surely'
I've always thought that was quite apt

[Monty]

Not sure how it stood in 1888 but presently in England you do not have give a policeman your name or address unless under arrest or in charge of a motor vehicle. Many police do not understand the rights of individuals or on purposely misrepresent them. In most cases people do give their details as they don't know any better or to save all the bother....I suppose it was no different in 1888.

This is cut from the following website

http://www.freedompress.org.uk/news/2011/03/23/march-26th-do-i-have-to-give-the-cops-my-name-and-address/

You do not have to give your name and address unless under a specific legal obligation (Rice v Connolly 1966). Refusal to give your name and address cannot amount to obstructing the police in the course of their duty under s89(2) Police Act 1996 but giving a false name and address can (Ledger v DPP 1991). Note this is pre-Human Rights Act. In general you can use any name you like unless it is for an illegal purpose. There are however a number of laws which make refusal or giving a false name and address to a constable a crime (in 1800s this was peddling or poaching). All have a maximum penalty of a fine.

Yes, you are absolutely correct Citizen X, I should have been clear. Perils of posting at 5am.

Please find attached the relevant pages in relation to circumstances of a Policeman who can arrest without a warrant. This from the City of London Police, Orders & Regulations and Acts of Parliment 1839 - 1894. Pages 32 to 34.

Monty

[Observer]

I meant Emma Green of course not Emma Smith - but she gave her full address - New Cottage - anyway.

Yes Charles Lechmere did avoid giving his correct name and address in open court. Whether a court often was satisfied with just a workplace is frankly irrelevant.

Now I really am confused. That's the problem of taking part in a thread when you've only really read half of the posts. Can you explain to me why it's irrelevant, given that you believe Charles Cross to have been the murderer?

[Lechmere]

Hi Observer
Check my post 196 above - I think that explains it.

[curious]

The whole significance of Charles Lechmere's address possibly being given is that it has been suggested that as he gave his workplace and address in open court he could not have been trying to hide his true identity by using the name Cross.
This does not necessarily follow, but in any case if he did not in fact give his address in open court (but the star established it through checking with the officials during the lunch recess) then it serves to strengthen the case that he was indeed acting in a way to obscure his identity.
Whether the court would often turn a blind eye to a witness not giving his address is irrelevant.

Court makes some people nervous.

Since other witnesses appear to have answered the same way he did, perhaps he answered what he thought he should answer as they likely did.

I don't believe we have found any records to indicate that he hung out in courtrooms and had any reason to be an expert on what he should and should not say.

[Lechmere]

That also misses the point.
It was contended that he couldn't have given the name Cross as part of a subterfuge as he also gave his address which was quoted in public in an open court.
If he did not give his address in public on an open court - for whatever reason - then this argument falls.

[Mr Lucky]

Lechmere,

Charles Cross gave his address in court. End of story.

The idea that a star journalist is going to 'hold the press' while he gets this information from some court room official, during the recess, while every other journalist is rushing to wire the biggest story of day back to head quarters is unrealistic.

Cross has actually described his route to Bucks Row, something like ~ I went down Parsons street, crossed Brady street and went up Bucks row

This information would have started with his home address and time he left home, which is confused enough anyway, as has been discussed on the other thread.

I was the one who first brought this up, weeks ago on the other thread, if it had any significance (and I thought it did, once upon time) it would still be in my essay along with the stuff that is, and I would not have brought it up on the forum.

What is significant is the fact that it was the star journalist who was the sole journalist interested enough to record his address when he anounced it in court, and I know why.

Seriously, my dear fellow, I'm not trying to pull the wool over your eyes on this.

[curious]

That also misses the point.
It was contended that he couldn't have given the name Cross as part of a subterfuge as he also gave his address which was quoted in public in an open court.
If he did not give his address in public on an open court - for whatever reason - then this argument falls.

Isn't the point that the authorities appeared to have his address, how else would the paper have obtained it?

SO, If the authorities had his information, then he was not trying to hide who he was.

He could simply be a person who answered the question the way he understood it.

You have taken a man with an exemplary record and turned yourself inside out trying to turn him into a serial killer.

[Lechmere]

From memory Charles Lechmere mentioned a couple if streets - I doubt he mentioned every twist and turn - and if I recall correctly one of the streets is mis reported anyway. This does not mean ge started the discourse from his from door ... ' I proceeded westerly down Doveton Street from number 22' etc.

The Star reporter would gave known his deadline and would only have had to meet that - getting a little more info than his rivals is what good journalists try to do.

So how the Star journalist wrote down the address and no one else bothered. Was he sitting nearer the witness stand?

[Lechmere]

Curious
Unless you think that only convicted murderers are legitimate candidates for 'suspect status' then the nature of the beast is that if you are going to enter the field of trying to to find out 'whodunit' then you are dealing with making accusations against long dead people with otherwise exemplary records.

Again the whole issue of his address goes back to who he was trying to hide from and what risks he wAs prepared to take when he felt obliged to go to the police in the first place. It was a case of damage limitation, once he made the choice to stand and face the person who was approaching him in Bucks Row. A sequence of events then followed from which he had to extra himself from as smoothly as possible.

[Mr Lucky]

From memory Charles Lechmere mentioned a couple if streets - I doubt he mentioned every twist and turn - and if I recall correctly one of the streets is mis reported anyway. This does not mean ge started the discourse from his from door ... ' I proceeded westerly down Doveton Street from number 22' etc.

It's noisy in the court, it takes a few moments for hush to fall, that why all the witness have incorrect names, addresses, ect. Cross is the biggest witness of the day, he's found the body, maximum background noise!

The Star reporter would gave known his deadline and would only have had to meet that - getting a little more info than his rivals is what good journalists try to do.

The star is an evening paper, it's the star that has the tightest deadline. Also, it isn't really the type of information that matters, it's not a scoop

So how the Star journalist wrote down the address and no one else bothered. Was he sitting nearer the witness stand

Why have some written down he works at broad street and some just say messrs pickfords and co? truth is the journalist are really only interested in him and Paul finding the body, the rest is just padding as far as they are concerned. There is a similar degree of varity at the end of his testimony in the different newspaper reports too.

[Observer]

Charles Cross gave his address in court. End of story.

Sorry Mr Lucky, no evidence for this whatsoever.

It's noisy in the court, it takes a few moments for hush to fall, that why all the witness have incorrect names, addresses, ect. Cross is the biggest witness of the day, he's found the body, maximum background noise!

So the witnesses were all lined up and before they gave their testimony they were all asked to state name and address?

I'd have thought each witness was questioned in turn, and they gave their names and addresses at the beginning of their testimony. Also, none of the addresses if they can be called that, were incorrect, which were incorrect?

For me, the reason some of the names were incorrectly observed was because of accent, and the journalists not being familiar with the name in question, Purkiss, Mulshaw, etc. Company names, Pickfords, East London Railway Company, Essex Wharf, unmistakable.

Why have some written down he works at broad street and some just say messrs pickfords and co?

Because he didn't give Doveton Street as his address?

This is what I believe Cross gave when asked who he was, words to the effect

My name is Charles Allen Cross I am a carman and I work for Pickfords of Broad Street.

Regards

Observer

[moonbegger]

Not sure where you created the "In reply to the coroner he said" quote as it's not in any of the inquest reports on Nichols I can find.

You are also incorrect in saying that only Police Officers and Surgeons did not give an address.

Read the testimony recorded for Patrick Mulshaw, the Whitechapel District Board of Works nightwatchman. He doesn't give an address either, just the location where he was working. Thomas Eade another, albeit unreliable, witness also states that he was "a signalman, in the employ of the East London Railway", but gives no home address. These two examples alone are from the Polly Nicols inquest reported in the press...maybe there are more examples if I started wading through the other inquest reports.

Cross stated that he was in the employ of Pickfords. This must have been acceptable to the coroner to establish identification. Pickfords was a reputable employer, Cross had worked for them for over 20 years and the police had obviously checked this out.

It's all there in black and white

Hello Citizen X

I get the impression your a bit quick on the trigger there ol chap ...

Not sure where you created the "In reply to the coroner he said" quote as it's not in any of the inquest reports on Nichols I can find.

I was using this example at the stride inquest [i had no part in creating it ] and was using it as an example of clearly what the witnesses were asked at all the inquests . if the answer is Name followed by address .. what would you suggest the question is ?

William Wess [West], who affirmed instead of being sworn, was the first witness examined, and, in reply to the coroner said: I reside at No. 2, William-street, Cannon-street-road, and am overseer in the printing office attached to No. 40, Berner-street, Commercial-road,

Created ? Are you aware of the difference between Created and documented Mr X ?

You are also incorrect in saying that only Police Officers and Surgeons did not give an address.

I said they was not PRESSED to , along with NON essential witnesses .. do you know the difference here also ?

...maybe there are more examples if I started wading through the other inquest reports.

Off you go sunshine .. and let me know when you find an essential witness who was there on the spot around the time of a discovery .. who is allowed to get away with no address !

Cheers

moonbegger .

[curious]

Curious
Unless you think that only convicted murderers are legitimate candidates for 'suspect status' then the nature of the beast is that if you are going to enter the field of trying to to find out 'whodunit' then you are dealing with making accusations against long dead people with otherwise exemplary records.

Again the whole issue of his address goes back to who he was trying to hide from and what risks he wAs prepared to take when he felt obliged to go to the police in the first place. It was a case of damage limitation, once he made the choice to stand and face the person who was approaching him in Bucks Row. A sequence of events then followed from which he had to extra himself from as smoothly as possible.

No, I naturally don't think that only convicted murderers are legitimate candidates for suspect status.

I eagerly embraced and explored your proposal of Lechmere in the beginning, feeling it had some merit. However, I don't feel you have the case that you and Fisherman keep hammering at us that you do.

I don't believe you can find any example of a known murderer who was the apparently steady good citizen that Lechmere appears to have been. And who was able to improve his lot in life by starting his own business.

And you can't use Dennis Rader as an example because he job hopped, was fired, and as a dog catcher had complaints about the way he treated the animals.

You are making an issue of his address that I personally feel has no weight, since other people apparently answered in the same way and you are not accusing them of murder.

I understand that you consider it the weight of many different things, but some of your suppositions don't really hold water -- in my personal opinion.

curious